Israel - Palestine Discussion | Post Respectfully | Discuss more, tweet less

Yeah, the guy who's a senior policeman and just secured aid for the first time in months for more than half a million starving people.

He's part of the same police that the Biden administration itself asked your depraved army to stop targeting them. You posted from the official IOF, so that's enough nonsense for a while.
 
Denis79 said:
I am not saying he wasn't there, Hamas terrorists must be hiding somewhere. Problem is it is very hard to believe anything coming from official Israeli sources. They have been very untrustworthy and at times even intentionally lied or even fabricated stories.
Click to expand...

Even then they are calling him internal security, he's part of the police.

 
Giggsy PO said:
“It might conceivably be the case that Jews have a genetically determined tendency toward usury and domination”. (Noam Chomsky, “The Fallacy of Richard Herrnstein's IQ,” Social Policy, May/June 1972.)
Click to expand...
When I google this sentence this is what I get, 2 results and one of them is this redcafe thread. Since the first link sends me to a 300 page book, can you point out where this is more specifically so I can read it with the full context?

JxuFKkn.png
 
Denis79 said:
I am not saying he wasn't there, Hamas terrorists must be hiding somewhere. Problem is it is very hard to believe anything coming from official Israeli sources. They have been very untrustworthy and at times even intentionally lied or even fabricated stories.
Click to expand...

I can accept that. The problem is people here taking things from other sources as gospel...
 
Another goal of these operations is more ethnic cleansing and moving people toward one of their concentration camps where they bomb civilians' tents day after day.
 
Amir said:
I can accept that. The problem is people here taking things from other sources as gospel...
Click to expand...

I think most don't. There are a few that have been taken over by emotion. I can only speak for myself but I honestly try to screen my sources a lot. I read UN reports and read a lot of statements and reports made by help organisations. There is little truth to be found from the two sides at war.
 
Denis79 said:
I think most don't. There are a few that have been taken over by emotion. I can only speak for myself but I honestly try to screen my sources a lot. I read UN reports and read a lot of statements and reports made by help organisations. There is little truth to be found from the two sides at war.
Click to expand...

The most trustworthy are civilians on the ground. Gazans may be untrustworthy for some but they have proven since the start of their genocide that they are the most reliable in reporting what's happening.
 
Idxomer said:
The most trustworthy are civilians on the ground. Gazans may be untrustworthy for some but they have proven since the start of their genocide that they are the most reliable in reporting what's happening.
Click to expand...
The other thing is, pretty much everything they've said has been corroborated by other independent organisations after.
 
maniak said:
When I google this sentence this is what I get, 2 results and one of them is this redcafe thread. Since the first link sends me to a 300 page book, can you point out where this is more specifically so I can read it with the full context?

JxuFKkn.png
Click to expand...
So far, all I've got is below, which seems to be a quote in a chat under an article. Chomsky's potential words are in inverted commas, with the introductory paragraph being from the poster:

As for the race & IQ debate. I suppose you are referring to Chomsky’s dismissal of Richard Herrnstein’s IQ. In fact questioning the propriety of some particular scientific investigation is *not* equivalent to a call for the *banning* much less of punishing such an investigation. I can see no double standard just common (left-libertarian) sense. There would have been equivalence had Chomsky suggestes banning Herrnstein’s article or firing him from his university position. This was not the case. The relevant quote regarding Chomsky’s criticism of Herrnstein’s IQ is this:

“… the question of the validity and scientific status of a particular point of view is, of course, logically independent from the question of its social function; each is a legitimate topic of inquiry, and the latter becomes of particular interest when the point of view in question is revealed to be seriously deficient on empirical or logical grounds.

… (The scientist) is responsible for the effects of what he does, insofar as they can be clearly foreseen. If the likely consequences of his “scientific work” (can be used as a justification for class and caste hierarchies), he has the responsibility to take this likelihood into account. This would be true even if the work had real scientific merit-more so, in fact, in this case.

Similarly imagine a psychologist in Hitler’s Germany who thought he could show that Jews had a genetically determined tendency toward usury … or a drive toward antisocial conspiracy and domination, and so on. If he were criticized for even undertaking these studies, could he merely respond that “a neutral commentator … would have to say that the case is simply not settled” and that the “fundamental issue” is “whether inquiry shall (again) be shut off because someone thinks society is best left in ignorance?” I think not. Rather I think that such a response would have been met with justifiable contempt. At best he could claim that he is faced with a conflict of values. On the one hand, there is the alleged scientific importance of determining whether, in fact, Jews have a genetically determined tendency toward usury and domination (as might conceivably be the case). On the other, there is the likelihood that even opening this question and regarding it as a subject for scientific inquiry would provide ammunition for Goebbels and Rosenberg and their henchmen. Were this hypothetical psychologist to disregard the likely social consequences of his research (or even his undertaking of research) under existing social conditions, he would fully deserve the contempt of decent people. Of course, scientific curiosity should be encouraged (though fallacious argument and investigation of silly questions should not), but it is not an absolute value.”
 
Fingeredmouse said:
So far, all I've got is below, which seems to be a quote in a chat under an article. Chomsky's potential words are in inverted commas, with the introductory paragraph being from the poster:

As for the race & IQ debate. I suppose you are referring to Chomsky’s dismissal of Richard Herrnstein’s IQ. In fact questioning the propriety of some particular scientific investigation is *not* equivalent to a call for the *banning* much less of punishing such an investigation. I can see no double standard just common (left-libertarian) sense. There would have been equivalence had Chomsky suggestes banning Herrnstein’s article or firing him from his university position. This was not the case. The relevant quote regarding Chomsky’s criticism of Herrnstein’s IQ is this:

“… the question of the validity and scientific status of a particular point of view is, of course, logically independent from the question of its social function; each is a legitimate topic of inquiry, and the latter becomes of particular interest when the point of view in question is revealed to be seriously deficient on empirical or logical grounds.

… (The scientist) is responsible for the effects of what he does, insofar as they can be clearly foreseen. If the likely consequences of his “scientific work” (can be used as a justification for class and caste hierarchies), he has the responsibility to take this likelihood into account. This would be true even if the work had real scientific merit-more so, in fact, in this case.

Similarly imagine a psychologist in Hitler’s Germany who thought he could show that Jews had a genetically determined tendency toward usury … or a drive toward antisocial conspiracy and domination, and so on. If he were criticized for even undertaking these studies, could he merely respond that “a neutral commentator … would have to say that the case is simply not settled” and that the “fundamental issue” is “whether inquiry shall (again) be shut off because someone thinks society is best left in ignorance?” I think not. Rather I think that such a response would have been met with justifiable contempt. At best he could claim that he is faced with a conflict of values. On the one hand, there is the alleged scientific importance of determining whether, in fact, Jews have a genetically determined tendency toward usury and domination (as might conceivably be the case). On the other, there is the likelihood that even opening this question and regarding it as a subject for scientific inquiry would provide ammunition for Goebbels and Rosenberg and their henchmen. Were this hypothetical psychologist to disregard the likely social consequences of his research (or even his undertaking of research) under existing social conditions, he would fully deserve the contempt of decent people. Of course, scientific curiosity should be encouraged (though fallacious argument and investigation of silly questions should not), but it is not an absolute value.”
Click to expand...

Excellent post.
 
Giggsy PO said:
Chomsky wrote it as a reply to Abe Rosenthal's article on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the signing of the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty. While you can find it cited in other works as well I guess the best would be to look at the original source. Here you go: Noam Chomsky, “The Middle East Lie”, Lies of Our Times, January, 1990.
Click to expand...

I’ve just read this and can find no references to “jewish run media” or “jewish domination of cultural and economic life”. Or have I misunderstood your citation?

(edit): actually it is there at the very end. The full quote:

IMG-8211.jpg
 
@Fingeredmouse @maniak

The Chomsky quote comes from this article (pdf link), I'm pretty sure. The title is different, and published elsewhere, but it's written at the same time, contains the same quote, and is a response to the same article.

He's comparing Richard Hernstein (co-author of The Bell Curve) looking into whether or not black people have lower IQ because of genetics to a scientist in Hitler's Germany looking into whether or not Jewish people are predisposed to engage in usury and domination.
 
NotThatSoph said:
@Fingeredmouse @maniak

The Chomsky quote comes from this article (pdf link), I'm pretty sure. The title is different, and published elsewhere, but it's written at the same time, contains the same quote, and is a response to the same article.

He's comparing Richard Hernstein (co-author of The Bell Curve) looking into whether or not black people have lower IQ because of genetics to a scientist in Hitler's Germany looking into whether or not Jewish people are more likely to engage in usury and domination.
Click to expand...
Thank you. Most helpful.
 
So Chomsky's quotes are him just making comparisons or imagining hypotheticals. I guess it tells us something about what type of sites/news @Giggsy PO reads.
 
maniak said:
So Chomsky's quotes are him just making comparisons or imagining hypotheticals. I guess it tells us something about what type of sites/news @Giggsy PO reads.
Click to expand...
It's pretty clear with people like Chomsky, the zionist community start with asserting a position on them and work backwards to try and build some sort of narrative.
 
maniak said:
So Chomsky's quotes are him just making comparisons or imagining hypotheticals. I guess it tells us something about what type of sites/news @Giggsy PO reads.
Click to expand...

Glad to see people taking the time to methodically dismantle his argument, but the very idea that Chomsky or Finkelstein are antisemite is downright absurd for anyone familiar with the two and their work.
 
Giggsy PO said:
Chomsky wrote it as a reply to Abe Rosenthal's article on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of the signing of the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty. While you can find it cited in other works as well I guess the best would be to look at the original source. Here you go: Noam Chomsky, “The Middle East Lie”, Lies of Our Times, January, 1990.

When I said there is much more to it, here you have another quote:

“It might conceivably be the case that Jews have a genetically determined tendency toward usury and domination”. (Noam Chomsky, “The Fallacy of Richard Herrnstein's IQ,” Social Policy, May/June 1972.)

Do you still need more evidence?
Click to expand...

Frankly, yes. Here's the context of his reply to Rosenthal:

Letters from Lexington - The Middle East Lie said:
“As for Rosenthal’s “existing Palestinian state” it is true that Jordan is so designated by both major Israeli political groupings. For Rosenthal, that suffices, and it is irrelevant that Jordan and the Palestinians vigorously reject this characterization; what right do mere Arabs have to express their views about their homes when the interests of Rosenthal’s favorites are at stake? We might ask how the Times would react to an Arab claim that the Jews do not merit a “second homeland” because they already have New York, with a huge Jewish population, Jewish run media, a Jewish mayor, and domination of cultural and economic life. We learn a good deal about the Newspaper of record —- and the intellectual culture that accepts all this without a murmur —- from consideration of this question. “
Click to expand...

As you can see he's not making an observation, he's comparing Rosenthal's notion that Palestinians should make do with Jordan to the (in his view) equally fallacious and provocative idea that Jews should make do with New York. He poses it as a rhetorical question to which he already knows the answer: Rosenthal, you, I and the Times would rightly consider that statement antisemitic. That's precisely his point.


As for the second quote, the context here is Chomsky arguing against Herrnstein's postulation that a just society must naturally and necessarily become stratified on the basis of intellect (as defined by IQ). His argument is three pronged - motive, value, byproduct. As part of this argument Chomsky alludes to how justifying one's seat atop society on the basis of IQ is disturbingly reminiscent of 19th century anthropological justifications for slavery. His argument in the passage in question is that even if we grant (he doesn't) that the subject under scrutiny (e.g. race based IQ) has scientific value this doesn't necessarily mean that the work should be undertaken. Social effects must be taken into account and just undertaking the research might serve to advance unconscionable public policy and reinforce pre-existing stigmas. Later arguments concentrate on the fact that he doesn't think that these subjects have any scientific value anyway and that any results from them fail to rise above the trivial.

Here are the pertinent paragraphs that shed light on your Chomsky quote (pg 382, here):

"The nineteenth-century racist anthropologists were no doubt quite often honest and sincere. They might have believed that they were simply dispassionate investigators, advancing science, following the facts where they led. Conceding this, we might, nevertheless, question their judgment, and not merely because the evidence was poor and the arguments fallacious. We might take note of the relative lack of concern over the ways in which these “scientific investigations” were likely to be used. It would be a poor excuse for the nineteenth-century racist anthropologist to plead in Herrnstein’s words, that a “neutral commentator…would have to say that the case is simply not settled” (with regard to racial inferiority) and that the “fundamental issue” is “whether inquiry shall (again) be shut off because someone thinks society is best left in ignorance.” The nineteenth-century racist anthropologist, like any other person, is responsible for the effects of what he does, insofar as they can be clearly foreseen. If the likely consequences of his “scientific work” are those that Harris describes [justifications for slavery/the caste system/colonialism], he has the responsibility to take this likelihood into account. This would be true even if the work had real scientific merit – more so, in fact, in this case.

Similarly imagine a psychologist in Hitler’s Germany who thought he could show that Jews had a genetically determined tendency toward usury (like squirrels bred to collect too many nuts) or a drive towards antisocial conspiracy and domination and so on. If he were criticised for even undertaking these studies, could he merely respond that “a neutral commentator…would have to say that the case is simply not settled” and that the “fundamental issue” is “whether inquiry shall (again) be shut off because someone thinks society is best left in ignorance”? I think not. Rather I think that such a response would have been met with justifiable contempt. At best he could claim that he is faced with a conflict of values. On the one hand there is the alleged scientific importance of determining whether, in fact, Jews have a genetically determined tendency towards usury and domination (as might conceivably be the case). On the other, there is the likelihood that even opening this question would provide ammunition for Goebbles and Rosenberg and their henchmen. Were this hypothetical psychologist to disregard the likely social consequences of his research (or even his undertaking of research) under existing social conditions he would fully deserve the contempt of decent people. Of course, scientific curiosity should be encouraged (though fallacious argument and investigation of silly questions should not), but it is not an absolute value."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
That_Bloke said:
Glad to see people taking the time to methodically dismantle his argument, but the very idea that Chomsky or Finkelstein are antisemite is downright absurd for anyone familiar with the two and their work.
Click to expand...
Hence my concern. I do not know Mr. Finkelstein's work to comment, but Chomsky's work seems wholly incompatible logically with antisemitism and he is, no matter your thoughts on his opinion, logical if nothing else.
 
NotThatSoph said:
@Fingeredmouse @maniak

The Chomsky quote comes from this article (pdf link), I'm pretty sure. The title is different, and published elsewhere, but it's written at the same time, contains the same quote, and is a response to the same article.

He's comparing Richard Hernstein (co-author of The Bell Curve) looking into whether or not black people have lower IQ because of genetics to a scientist in Hitler's Germany looking into whether or not Jewish people are predisposed to engage in usury and domination.
Click to expand...
I don't know where does your article comes from, when it was published, why it has different title.

My source was correct:
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ061325

The article can be also found in Ethical Issues in Scientific Research: An Anthology, edited by Edward Erwin, Sidney Gendin, Lowell Kleiman (1994).

But you know what is funny. In your article the parenthesis say "an empirical question, no doubt" while the article I sourced says "as might conceivably be the case". Why the difference?
 
Giggsy PO said:
I don't know where does your article comes from, when it was published, why it has different title.

My source was correct:
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ061325

The article can be also found in Ethical Issues in Scientific Research: An Anthology, edited by Edward Erwin, Sidney Gendin, Lowell Kleiman (1994).

But you know what is funny. In your article the parenthesis say "an empirical question, no doubt" while the article I sourced says "as might conceivably be the case". Why the difference?
Click to expand...
A good question, but irrespective, it's seemingly pretty certain that the quote used earlier is not representative of the work, nor Chomsky's opinion, unless I'm missing something?
 
Giggsy PO said:
I don't know where does your article comes from, when it was published, why it has different title.

My source was correct:
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ061325

The article can be also found in Ethical Issues in Scientific Research: An Anthology, edited by Edward Erwin, Sidney Gendin, Lowell Kleiman (1994).

But you know what is funny. In your article the parenthesis say "an empirical question, no doubt" while the article I sourced says "as might conceivably be the case". Why the difference?
Click to expand...

Yes, I know, but those publications aren't available online, at least freely. This one is.

Those two quotes mean the same thing.
 
The Corinthian said:
At least we found a conspiracy theory relating to Tik Tok @Raoul.
Click to expand...

The article doesn't really break any new ground. The move to ditch Tik Tok isn't based on something that has already happened, but rather on the legal infrastructure of ByteDance having to comply with Chinese law if the CCP demanded access to its data, to include 150m US users or anyone else from any other country. The Chinese and Russian governments have similar laws in place so they can access user data to prevent social networks from influencing opposition movements domestically, and they can also use the same data to weaponize it against democratic systems with high user followings.
 
Idxomer said:
Instead of conspiracy theories about the Chinese government controlling TikTok and manipulating unsuspecting Americans. This seems to me like a far bigger concern that affects directly American democracy right now.

Click to expand...


AIPAC and the pro-Israel lobby have always been controversial. For instance, Mearshimer and Steven Walt wrote a book about the Israeli lobby in DC back in 2007. But ultimately its only a pantomime villain that glosses over the fact that America is inherently a Christian country that relates both religiously and culturally to the existence of a strong Israel. That's not something that would go away if AIPAC contributed less to various politicians.
 
Raoul said:
The article doesn't really break any new ground. The move to ditch Tik Tok isn't based on something that has already happened, but rather on the legal infrastructure of ByteDance having to comply with Chinese law if the CCP demanded access to its data, to include 150m US users or anyone else from any other country. The Chinese and Russian governments have similar laws in place so they can access user data to prevent social networks from influencing opposition movements domestically, and they can also use the same data to weaponize it against democratic systems with high user followings.
Click to expand...
That’s irrelevant given that there’s literally no evidence at the time of writing that supports that.

U.S. intelligence has produced no evidence that the popular social media site has ever coordinated with Beijing.
 
Giggsy PO said:
I don't know where does your article comes from, when it was published, why it has different title.

My source was correct:
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ061325

The article can be also found in Ethical Issues in Scientific Research: An Anthology, edited by Edward Erwin, Sidney Gendin, Lowell Kleiman (1994).

But you know what is funny. In your article the parenthesis say "an empirical question, no doubt" while the article I sourced says "as might conceivably be the case". Why the difference?
Click to expand...
Could you shut up about Chomsky now? Your accusations against him have been thoroughly dismantled, so unless you can cough up something new that isn't just a quote taken completely out of context, there's really no need for you to keep harping on about him being a self-hating Jew or antisemite.
 
The Corinthian said:
That’s irrelevant given that there’s literally no evidence at the time of writing that supports that.

U.S. intelligence has produced no evidence that the popular social media site has ever coordinated with Beijing.
Click to expand...

That's not what the purpose of banning Tik Tok is though. Its to prevent it from happening in the future when the US and China are on the cusp of military conflict over something like Taiwan or a similar issue. That's certainly light years away from the anti-Israel hipster community's flamboyant hypothesis that a rich Jewish guy is buying Tik Tok to shill on behalf of his own ethnicity.
 
Raoul said:
But ultimately its only a pantomime villain that glosses over the fact that America is inherently a Christian country that relates both religiously and culturally to the existence of a strong Israel. That's not something that would go away if AIPAC contributed less to various politicians.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know. A lot of Americans relate to the type of apartheid Israel is. That's not the problem, AIPAC has moved from just lobbying. They want unconditional support no matter Israel's actions which is the reason they have moved lately to spending large amounts of money on elections. They also want no opposition or any politician highlighting Israel's war crimes, either starvation or any other genocidal acts.
 
Why Does Biden Keep Making the Same Dangerous Comment About Jews?
Over and over again, Biden has said that no Jew in the world would be safe without Israel. What is he talking about?

It’s clear that those protesting for a cease-fire and a free Palestine through civil disobedience, through uncommitted votes, through fundraisers to evacuate Palestinian families—even, in the case of Aaron Bushnell, through the sacrifice of their own life—are far more clear in their purpose and strategy than Joe Biden. So far, Biden’s only been able to offer his constituents catchphrases, theoretical, temporary pauses in the violence instead of a real cease-fire, and, most gallingly, verbal posturing about the supposed safety Israel provides rather than a movement to save real, human lives that Israel is obliterating.

Jewish and Muslim Americans alike deserve, and demand, more than slogans. Gaza deserves seriousness. Those mobilizing for Palestinian rights here in the US—from Girl Scouts in Missouri to grandmothers in New York—deserve that, too. Biden would be well-advised not to take their votes for granted. And he ought to stop acting as if Jewish Americans are Israel’s problem—and, even more importantly, stop using Jews as cover for his ongoing support of genocide
Click to expand...

Why Does Biden Keep Making the Same Dangerous Comment About Jews? | The Nation
 
You must log in or register to reply here.